The Zipp rims are arguably better and more advanced. The King hubs are arguably better than the Zipps. Both wheels use the same excellent spokes.

I am 6ft 2in and weigh 92kgs. The Gigantex will be 24/20 vs the Zipps at 20/16, although I am light on kit and don't flex 20/16 Zipps.

I have only ever ridden 'branded' rims, and as much as I hear good things about Gigantex, and trust Derek at Wheelsmith, something draws me towards the Zipps even though they are more expensive, and in my head if I am objective, the Gigantex wheels will probably be better, and cheaper to replace a rim should I crash.

They both are lathe aluminum shells with standard industrial bearings and aluminum axles. They both do not manufacture their own bearings. Chris king sources their proprietary bearings from somewhere. Zipp uses standard sizes, available from everywhere. Freehub engagement, hmm... never understood what it matters, even in SS MTB use.

You are correct about the J bend spokes, yes... but Gigantex rims are so generic, I think it would be better to build them with Novatec hubs, which fall into same price and image category...

Rim tech, similar hubs plus resale advantage probably clinches it for the Zipps.

I'd have to agree with sawyer's remarks. Rims are the big advantage in terms of aero qualities and braking that Zipps have over Gigantex. Certainly outweighs any possible disadvantage in the hubs, not that I believe its an issue anymore.

Only wish to add, depending on how/where you are sourcing your Zipps, you could simply get them built on CK/DT/Alchemy if you prefer through some place like Wheelbuilder.

Information comes from reviewers (such as Pez, Cycling News) even though most reviews (in the same group) don't test gigantex rims nor open mold ones, and the magazines which, again, don't test the open-mold rims, and of course the marketing departments/persons of ZIPP, Hed, Bontrager, Enve, and so on.

This is in no way stating that the reviews of professionals such as Pez or Cycling News, nor the magazines, do a bad job with reviews. They perform excellent reviews, are professional, and have a mostly* trustworthy voice on issues. What is being pointed out, however, is that they do not test the open-mold products.

Let's not get into why that isn't done. If we did this thread will be endless bantering on, and on, and on, and we'll have circular discussions with new posts from people who never bothered to read prior arguments, and eventually it gets to personal insults, and eventually the mods will have to lock the thread and send out warnings.

*mostly. This is for everyone. I do not believe any source is 100% trustworthy. Even if it is 99% trustworthy absolutely without any bias, be it fiscal, psychological or other, it is still "mostly" for purely logical purposes.

Fact: Zipp's rims consistently test as either the most aero or just about the most aero rim in the market for their depth

Fact: In no remotely credible test has a Gigantex rim of the same depth ever outperformed a Zipp rim in aerodynamic performance

Is there even an aero test in which Gigantex rims outperform other rims of the same depth?

Having owned Zipp and Gigantex I'd favour Zipp's braking performance, and I don't see any evidence of R&D and tech development in braking performance with Gigantex rims, but Zipp have pushed carbon tech on in this regard.

Even allowing for Prefendeu's correct observation that open mould rims are seldom tested, there is nothing in the shape, based on the shapes of other rims that are tested, to suggest they will perform exceptionally well, and there is no evidence of significant tunnel testing, R&D etc. by companies like gigantex that should lead us to believe otherwise.

Information comes from reviewers (such as Pez, Cycling News) even though most reviews (in the same group) don't test gigantex rims nor open mold ones, and the magazines which, again, don't test the open-mold rims, and of course the marketing departments/persons of ZIPP, Hed, Bontrager, Enve, and so on.

This is in no way stating that the reviews of professionals such as Pez or Cycling News, nor the magazines, do a bad job with reviews. They perform excellent reviews, are professional, and have a mostly* trustworthy voice on issues. What is being pointed out, however, is that they do not test the open-mold products.

Incorrect.

In the last 25 years or so I've read plenty of reviews that read like ad copy because they are. Look at reviews vs ad space and get back to me.

Regarding reviews on open mold products I read two just recently but the products weren't identified as open mold products since they had been branded. It happens all the time. That's right, all the time you just don't know it.

Another point, pretty much ALL factories offer open mold products regardless if they are rims, pumps lights, frames, bars or anything else you can name. It's just how it works. These same factories also produce proprietary goods. The fact that they offer open mold products is not a reflection on their quality or capability; It's par for the course.

As to R&D, ALL rims are built and tested to EN standards and yes, Gigantex and other reputable carbon vendors test their rims (unlike most Chinese consumer direct vendors dumping their products on eBay or Alibaba) because of PRODUCT LIABILITY.

For hubs I'd give the nod to the CK hubs. The Zipp hubs do not have the best reputation whereas the CK hubs are stellar. Suggesting that both hubs are the same because they are made from alloy is like saying all violins are the same because they are all made from trees.

We just spent the better part of a year developing hubs for an OE customer and believe me, there is a lot more involved in the design of GOOD hubs that meets the eye. Things like material and hardening choices, bearing placement, flange diameters and decisions about bearing bores, the ability to preload or not, design considerations that affect serviceability, and WEIGHT just to name a few.

Has Zipp been a market leader in terms developing new shapes etc? Yes. They have also been a leader in terms of marketing. Their in-house testing is skewed heavily in their favour while independent third party testing tends to close the gap quite a bit with Zipp still doing very well. They clearly are very good rim designs.

Specifically to the OP, one concern is spoke count. For your weight 16/20 is pretty low, 20/24 might serve you better.

On paper the Zipp wheels may be the better product but are they better by 200£-300£? And are they the best choice to meet YOUR needs. I'm not as sure as others who seem heavily influenced by brand and marketing. Either way you'll end up with quality wheels I'm sure you'll enjoy.

I've never owned Zipps, but I'm certainly happy with my Gigantex rims. I have clinchers with over 12k mi on them, tubulars with over 6k mi on them and they've been great. The brake tracts still look great and I've hit some really nasty potholes with no breakage.

This interests me as well. I'm on the fence between a pair of Rynolds 66 with DT 240, or Zipp 404 Firecrest. Both brand new factory built. Cost is not an issue, but since people always want to use that as a factor the 66 are $1000 the 404 are $1840.

I understant the rim differences, I think we all do. I think the big question is the hubs. In my case zipp hub vs. 240. In OPs case King vs Zipp hub.

My specific concern is hub durability, bearing load, play. I have read that some people experience play in the rear zipp hub. That would drive me insane and would outweigh any aero advantage.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum